Despite a growing national need to develop capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), many men and women who are considered talented in these areas during high school choose not to pursue STEM undergraduate majors. A purpose of the current study was to better understand factors that contribute to an individual’s formal entry into the domain through the declaration of a STEM college major. Survey methodology was used to explore the perceptions of 360 Science Talent Search semifinalists and finalists from the years 1987 to 1989 and 1997 to 1999, and quantitative procedures were used to analyze the data. A majority (74.2%) of these students declared STEM majors and went on to graduate with STEM degrees. Belief in one’s ability to achieve in STEM and the quality of students’ academic experiences (level of challenge, hands-on nature, and adequacy of preparation for careers) were predictors of STEM majors in college. Reasons for attrition and implications for practice are discussed.
AmesC. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478-487.
3.
ArnoldK. (1992). Undergraduate aspirations and career outcomes of academically talented women: A discriminant analysis. Roeper Review, 15, 169-175.
4.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
5.
BloomB. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
6.
BrandweinP. F. (1995). Science talent in the young expressed within ecologies of achievement (No. RBDM1950). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
7.
CattellR. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DavisP. S.SpencerS. S.SteeleC. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276-287.
11.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
DweckC. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
13.
DweckC. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? (pp. 47-55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
EcclesJ. S.AdlerT. F.FuttermanR.GoffS. B.KaczalaC. M.MeeceJ. L.MidgleyC. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
15.
EnmanM.LupartJ. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161-178.
16.
FarengaS. J.JoyceB. A. (1998). Science-related attitudes and science course selection: A study of high-ability boys and girls. Roeper Review, 20, 244-255.
17.
FeistG. (2006). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23-35.
GableR. K.WolfM. B. (1998). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Nonvell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
20.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
21.
GoodC.AronsonJ.InzlichtM. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645-662.
22.
HalpernD.AronsonJ.ReimerN.SimpkinsS.StarJWentzelK. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science (NCER 2007-2003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://ncer.ed.gov
23.
HarackiewiczJ. M.BarronK. E.TauerJ. M.ElliotA. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562-575.
24.
KingD. (2004). The scientific impact of nations: What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311-316.
25.
LimónM. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
26.
LindnerJ. R.MurphyT. H.BriersG. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53.
27.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 61-66.
28.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. (2001). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Association for Psychological Science, 1, 316-344.
29.
LubinskiD.BenbowC.WebbR.Bleske-RechekA. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194-199.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
33.
National Science Foundation. (2006). Bachelor’s degrees awarded in S&E and non-S&E fields, by sex. 1966-2004. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
34.
NeberH.Schommer-AikinsM. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13, 59-74.
35.
NeumeisterK. L. S.HébertT. P. (2003). Underachievement vs. selective achievement: Delving deeper and discovering the difference. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 26, 226-238.
36.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2006). The role of summer enrichment programs in developing the talents of gifted students. In VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.), Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom (pp. 13-35). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
37.
PoockM.LoveP. (2001). Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in higher education administration. NASPA Journal, 36, 202-223.
38.
RenzulliJ. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
39.
RussellS. H. (2005). Evaluation of NSF Support for undergraduate research opportunities: Survey of STEM graduates. Arlington, VA: The National Science Foundation.
40.
SkampK. (2007). Conceptual learning in the primary and middle years: The interplay of heads, hearts and hands-on science. Teaching Science—Journal of the Australian Science Teachers’ Association, 53(3), 18-22.
SosniakL. A. (1985). Becoming an outstanding research neurologist. In BloomB. S. (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 348-408). New York, NY: Ballantine.
43.
SubotnikR. F.JarvinL. (1994). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 343-357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SubotnikR.SteinerC. (1993). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science. Roeper Review, 15, 164-169.
45.
SubotnikR.StoneK. M.SteinerC. (2001). Lost generation of elite talent in science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 33-43.
46.
TaiR. H.LiuC. Q.MalteseA. V.FanX. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144.
47.
TaiR. H.SadlerP. M.MintzesJ. J. (2006, September). Factors influencing college science success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(1), 52-56.
48.
TaiR.SandlerP. (2001). Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1017-1037.
49.
TillbergH.CohoonJ. M. (2005). Attracting women to the CS major. Frontiers, 26, 126-140.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2005). Domain-specific giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 358-376). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
WoolnoughB. (1995, May). School effectiveness for different types of potential scientists and engineers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13, 53-66.
53.
YoreL.BisanzG. L.HandB. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: Twenty-five years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.
